a few corrections:
>>1. Habitual spammers should be legally prosecuted and
All spammers should be legally prosecuted and heavily penalised. Setting limits by which some spam is ok and other spam isn't will give the green light to millions of responsible site owners. result = more spam.
the vast majority of spam comes from small-time spammers not from companies sending millions of emails every day. a few thousand companies each sending a few thousand emails per day is just as damaging as one company sending a few million emails per day. in fact, it is probably more harmful when thousands of small companies send the spam as we need to set up more filters, need to block more IPs, need to take more action etc than for just one company.
>>2. Somebody with a relatively small amount of complaints
>>on their server/network vs. the emails they send out
>>should not be harassed, stalked, mass-signed up or
>>prosecuted by either the law or vigilantes.
A relatively small amounty of complaints vs. the number of emails sent does not make it "OK" to send spam. spammers should have their computing equipment confiscated and should be banned from owning computers. spammers should be forced to compensate the unwilling recipients of their spam.
as it is impractical to distribute small amounts of cash to large numbers of people, governments should set up schemes whereby groups of spammers have to work (unpaid) for the victims of spam in some way - maybe "community service" like cleaning graffiti or sorting large piles of household refuse as part of a large scale recycling scheme.
>>3. Companies promoting blacklists which incorrectly
>>identify somebody as a "spammer" when they are not should
>>be prosecuted for conspiracy to restrict trade and
>>defamation. Habitual offenders should be shut down.
most blacklist providers do a pretty good job of blacklisting spammers and save the majority of the world's population from receiving a massive amount of spam. most blacklist providers use a lot of evidence to determine whether someone is a spammer or not and to determine whether they should be added to a blacklist (sometimes automated with very strict rules) or whether they should be removed from one (reformed spammer, web host that no longer allows spamming, accidental addition to blacklists etc).
The overwhelming majority of sites / IP addresses added to blacklists are on the blacklists because they are spammers or they support spammers.
>>4. I guess I've had a good filtering system for several
>>years so it's hard for me to understand why people are
>>resorting to web extremism, blacklists and collateral
lucky you. the vast majority of the world's population have no idea how to set up junk mail filters in Outlook or other email clients, nor of the many other ways to filter spam. <snip>
[edited by: Macguru at 4:30 pm (utc) on Dec. 5, 2002]
[edit reason] Please re-read terms of service, thanks. [/edit]